I’ve never heard a solid business reason why corporate plaintiffs should not at least seriously consider a suitable plaintiffs’ firm. But to get to that point, corporate counsel need to forget all they think they know about these redoubtable firms.

However tirelessly we pursue the goal of full-proof prophylaxis, we also need to be realistic about how porous the borders will remain as mass communications further volatize an already inconstant public opinion.

If the objective is real diversity, we’d suggest that a closer dialogue on actual practices will benefit everyone. Are senior managers and rainmakers visibly and insistently supporting the diversity goal?

If nothing else, a July 20 Times feature on Smith reinforces a constant sub-theme of this column and the insistent message in-house counsel have been hearing for years about the need to expand their professional impact beyond the confines of strictly legal practice.

No matter what eventually happens, the controversy surrounding General Motors’ defective ignition switches and the company's alleged failure to recall the product when needed will continue to resonate for in-house counsel in the decades-long struggle to define their dual public and client responsibilities.